GoCats67

The problem with your logic here (clearly not the text of the 2nd amendment) is that if you apply that logic to the entire document, the only freedom of the press would be that press that is published via handwriting or printing press, freedom of speech would not be allowed on the radio, TV or that crazy new-fangled internet!!! and so on and so on...

I am actually on-board with more reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, it should not be absolute, just like the other freedoms in the document aren't absolute (despite the 1st amendment, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater...) but trying to say that the bill of rights only applied to the technology available at the time the framers drafted the document, could not possibly be considered as reasonable when you try to apply that to the entire document. (nobody, left or right would agree to that)

The Framers were some smart dudes, they put in the specific provisions on how to "fix" any mistakes they made. They are called amendments and we have had 17 additional amendments ratified since the original 10. (although 21 was just "fixing" 18, so not really an amendment to address something the Framers missed.) I view the chances of the 2nd amendment being repealed (or any of the original bill of rights for that matter) as being basically ZERO. So, when that becomes the discussion as is so often the case, I know that we are not going to get anywhere. Ironically I believe that it is a small minority of the country that believe that the 2nd amendment should be repealed and an equally small minority of the country that believe that the 2nd amendment provides for gun ownership without any regulation. However these two factions, seem to be the ones that yell the loudest, get the most press, and define the argument and so we get nowhere.

The 2nd amendment requires "well regulated" but also states that ownership rights shall not be "infringed." This brings us to the other part of why I say those Framers were some smart dudes, they divided the government and gave us a court to make sure that both of those aspects of the 2nd amendment were complied with in any law that the legislative branch decided to enact. If we could get rid of the extremist noise, perhaps we could get some legislation that can both ensure gun ownership rights, while also ensuring that ownership is well regulated that would both reflect the Framers intent but reflect the changes to the technology as well.

Then perhaps we could move on to the actual failures that allowed the most recent shooter to carry out his massacre! The calls for new laws, remind me of changes to SOPS. When somebody doesn't follow SOPs and that results in a mishap, do we need to change the SOPs or change the training to ensure SOPs are complied with? Certainly if "SOPs" had been followed here, non of us outside of South Florida would have ever heard of Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School.

As others have stated, we have a model with regard to DUI's. DUIs were not brought down by outlawing alcohol, but rather by bringing about programs to prevent the misuse of alcohol. Though I wouldn't put them up with the Framers, the MADD folks were some smart ladies, they new that outlawing alcohol was a non-starter, so they went about addressing the problem in a much more productive manner. Perhaps a similar model to better prevent the misuse of firearms can be as successful!

HuggyU2

What if there were serious gun controls? | TheHill

"After the Las Vegas murders, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) urged Congress to “take a stand against gun violence by passing common-sense gun safety laws.” On Monday, after the mass murder in Texas, he wrote, “A simple idea: Anyone convicted of domestic abuse should see their rights under the 2nd Amendment severely curtailed.” On Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) announced that he and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) are writing a bill “to prevent anyone convicted of domestic violence — be it in criminal or military court — from buying a gun.

In the spirit of these proposals, here are some ideas for tough federal gun laws — most of which should have been enacted years ago.

For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.


Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

For decades researchers have found that many Americans do not understand how strict gun control laws already are. Some elected officials and journalists are similarly misinformed. Widespread ignorance about existing law makes things easier for anti-gun lobbyists who always insist that every notorious crime proves that we need more gun control laws.

Happyflyer

The founding fathers were Christians and would have gotten their wings in a bunch with legal abortion.

The columbine kids did not use an
AR-15, or any other military assault rifle.

On May 22, 2017 a bomb detonated in Manchester England killing 22 and wounding hundreds.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment with the intent that US citizens could legelly own and protect themselves, and their country with the available arms of that day. The ability to form a legal millita would help defend an enormous country with the aviable transportation speeds.

If French citizens had the right to bear arms Germany may not have conquered them. If the Jews had the right they may not have been marched into death camps.

I think the "free speech" filth on video games and movies contribute far more to the motivation of these crimes than a rife does.

In this country the justifiable, civil disobedience during the civil rights movement has mutated into the unjustifiable lack of any respect for authority or life. Including police, military, our school peers, flight attendants, and captains.

Everyone is taught that everyone else is guilty of all social sins.

You have just claimed the NRA and it's 5 million members are terrorist. Which you know to be untrue, but need to disrespect them so badly in order to emphasize your opinion.
You are partaking in the disrespect for life in the same way this school shooter did.
Calling someone a terrorist in this day, is saying they need to be shot on sight. So you believe 5 million Americans need to be shot on site for supporting responsible gun ownership.

Airway

You know next to nothing about the founding fathers, evidently.

Airway

If that was the conclusion you drew, you might be insane, or too stupid to pass the gun test I was talking about. I don't think you should be allowed to own a weapon.

oldmako

tomgoodman

Procedure of choice for eliminating or changing said Amendment:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.“

BoilerUP

How long did it take you to post that to the interwebs via printing press?

RomeoHotel

Maybe the non-UAL non-pilot types should go preach and rant on some other website....
I’m sure Fox might offer some platform for your gun/abortion debate....
And thanks for the graphic Mako, point well made...

Davedave

+ 1
“The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time” by Michael Stokes Paulsen.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss4/2/
If you like critical thinking, worth the time to read this as it will challenge your beliefs on what a “woman’s right” is with regard to taking the life of another life. It discusses when we’ve been given the right to take other life with regard to self defense with guns as well.

“The Plausibility of Personhood” in-depth Constitutional and Legal look at when the law deems a fetus as a person.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/gr..._Publisher.pdf
Amazing look at this subject from leading constitutional scholar about case law of when we have recognized “life” as a judicial and legislative branch.

Sadly 51 of our senators feel it is OK to abort human fetuses after 20 weeks; when a baby is the length of your hand and the brain is the size of an egg. Dems block 20-week abortion ban | TheHill

Agreed.
There is a process for repealing our rights as written. If you want to repeal the second amendment, EASY—just get 34 states to vote to repeal.
While we’re at it, see if Adam Schiff will do the same for our 4th amendment.